Santorum should off himself..

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jul 13, 6:31 PM ET



WASHINGTON - In a rare personal attack on the Senate floor, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy accused Sen. Rick Santorum on Wednesday of being self-righteous and insensitive for a column he wrote three years ago linking Boston's liberalism to the sex abuse scandal in its Catholic diocese.


Santorum, R-Pa., wrote in the July 2002 column for Catholic Online that promoting alternative lifestyles feeds such aberrant behavior as priests molesting children. "Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture," Santorum wrote. "When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."
In a speech, Kennedy, D-Mass., called for Santorum to retract his remarks and apologize to the people of Boston and Massachusetts and the nation.

"The people of Boston are to blame for the clergy sexual abuse? That is an irresponsible, insensitive and inexcusable thing to say," said Kennedy.

Robert Traynham, a spokesman for Santorum, said his boss recognizes that the church abuse scandal was not just in Boston, but all over the country.

Throughout the United States, sexual abuse by priests has cost the Catholic Church more than $1 billion. The Archdiocese of Philadelphia has said that its records show 44 priests have been "credibly" accused of molesting minors since the 1950s.

Traynham said Santorum "was speaking to a broader cultural argument about the need for everyone to take these issues very, very seriously."

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican who — like Santorum — has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008, called the remarks unfortunate, but did not ask for an apology, said spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom.

"Senator Santorum is a fine person, and we're all entitled to make a mistake once in a while," Fehrnstrom said.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., commented, "As a prosecutor in Massachusetts, I saw some of the worst criminals who had abused children and not once did I hear them hide behind Senator Santorum's bizarre claim that the state was responsible for their acts."

The scandal began in Boston in early 2002 when internal church files released under court order revealed abusive priests were transferred from parish to parish rather than removed from the ministry. Cardinal Bernard Law resigned as archbishop later that year amid criticism over his handling of the crisis.

A 2003 investigation by Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly found that at least 1,000 children in the state were abused by more than 235 priests and church workers between 1940 and 2000. The archdiocese has paid out more than $120 million to settle abuse claims since 1950.

Fucking loon.

A sound theory. If you encourage men to go around sucking each others cocks, it will become more acceptable to engage in other unnatural sexual acts, such as molesting children.

Luther.. really then how come it did not happen in San Francisco ?

Dumbest thing I've ever read of yours.

once again you associate adult's being attracted to other same sex adults - with the sickness of predators seeking out children for abuse.

and you have YET to offer any explaination as to why YOU think being gay is "bad" or "wrong".

and certainly NO proof that being gay has ANYTHING to do with pediofiles.

somehow the fact that most pediofiles are NOT GAY has escaped your notice.

The reason for doing so is because there is, in fact, an association.


Men who have sex with men are far more likely to have sex with children, and men who have sex with children are far more likely to have sex with men.

Whoaa!! Be careful. Luther is probably the dumbest motherfucker on this board, and that is saying something. As a result of a low IQ & no real intellectual curiousity he has a library full of really fucking stupid comments. Don't be so quick to label this as the dumbest.

If a men is willing to push aside his natural inhibitions and have sex with men, it is more likely that he would be willing to push aside his natural inhibitions and have sex with children.

Luther.. really then how come it did not happen in San Francisco ?

Who's to say it hasn't? For God's sake, SF is a hotbed of sexual perversion. It would shock me entirely if child molestation wasn't a component of that.

Whether or not there is a correlation between homosexuality and child molestation has yet to be seen. Are we arguing correlation or causality here? It logically follows that the encouragement of sexual misbehavior and deviating sexual behaviors serves as a catalyst for removing the discrimination we should all have when it comes to our own behavior. If we sanction one deviant people will automatically assume we sanction them all.

Society and culture follows certain trends and people imitate what they believe to be appropriate and acceptable behavior. But it's cyclical...if you approve of one deviating behavior it only follows that society is gradually moving into approving them all. Cut it off at the choke point.

If people want to be gay, fine. I have no problem with that. But let's not go so far as to say there isn't a correlation between these two deviations.

there's no proof that being gay is "deviant"

and cetainly none that a gay person SUDDENLY wants sex with children.

anymore than a straight person SUDDENLY wants sex with children.

we are talking about two different situations.

you have nothing to stand on here.

and I once again remind you that you have NEVER proven that being gay isn't perfectly normal.

repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

By "deviant" it means it "deviates" from the norm or average, scientifically/statistically. Don't have an emotive reaction to the semantics. Look at it logically. Look at it numerically.

And you'd never scientifically be able to "prove" that anyway since it can neither be qualified nor quantified, as Kinsey aptly pointed out many years ago. We cannot measure sexuality, we can only go on averages, and the AVERAGE is heterosexuality, and DEVIATING from average is everything else.

You are inferring that "deviant" is something bad. I am using it as a scientific term, meaning anything that is not at the intersection of the X and Y axis (e.g. average, most common, etc).

Simple.

I can look at it statistcally (and always have), but Luther cannot and i've been trying to get him pined down on exactly what he objects to about gayness.

he has Never answered that.

the general percentage seems to be about 10% gay in any population.

what I'm trying to suggest to Luther is that a constant 10% gay may in fact be totally normal.

but he gets hung up it being "wrong" and I ask, why?
i get no answer. and using the bible is no answer.

That's what Kinsey reported, but the more widely accepted figure is 3-4% in 2005. While I really value his research and believe his study on human sexuality is valuable, Kinsey's statistics were marginalized with a great deal of error +/- 5%, which is generally acceptable to most people, but when you are talking about population of ________s in society it's very important. He included people that have "any homosexual experience" but was unsure of how to define that. A homosexual thought? A homosexual act? This is why he built the 0-6 scale. Eventually, he realized that 10% of people had some sort o "homosexual" to their nature, which is very different from saying that 10% of people are overtly gay.

i really don't care if it's 10% or 3% or even 50%
(don't get me wrong, it's important to be as accurate as possible)

BUT, in this discussion, it's about the idea that a certain percentage is in fact normal.

as opposed to 0%, which is what people like Luther would want.

A certain percentage of any sociological deviance is "natural," of course. This includes genetic mutations, learned/conditioned behaviors, and natural phenomena that affects behavior. With that in mind, however, there is a difference between something being "normal" at X% and something being "normal" by commonplace. If 15% of the population is black, we don't call that "deviant," we just call that "a minority," which could also be used to describe homosexuality. Blacks are statistically deviating from the 'average' but it's not ABNORMAL to be black. Average is nothing more than the meaty part of the bell-curve.

I agree that whatever the percentage, it is important to know for the sake of social science research. And politicians need that information to be as accurate as possible too.

What I want is for humanity to take "evolution" into its own hands. That means helping along the process of natural selection in order to make way for a better human race. Humanity can only better itself if ceratin undesirable elements are eliminated.

Interesting. I've heard similar arguments for social darwinism too. Natural selection eventually catches up with folks, whether it be by their genetics, social conditioning, or stupid behavior. We're just biology, and we've figured out plenty of ways to kill ourselves off....at least the dumb people. Unfortunately, for all the healthy members of the human race, we have to suffer at the hands of the lower order

Luther = Hitler

Hitler had a vision, he had the opportunity, but he did not know how to get there.

I have a vision, a different vision, a better vision, and I do know how to get there. The only question is whether or not I will have the opportunity.

Humanity likes it slow and painful.

Luther.. so do the handicapped have to get in line to enter the ovens ?

i love your circular "logic"

1) you have provided no proof that gay people are less evolved than straight people.
2) why do you know what is "evolved" or superior? what are you, god?

I'd like to point out that alot of gay people are, in fact, more creative, have more money, do more for the economy, and frankly are more fun than their small numbers would indicate.

gay people own and run numerous business that all sorts of people use to add quality to their lives. they range from landscaping, construction, theater, interior design, TV, and on and on.

there are gay people who own homes, run companies, and contribute significantly to society. why you or anyone think they don't deserve respect is simply beyond me.

Persephone, wouldn't there be more of a correlation between men/or women who like their sexual objects to be young (say, 12 to 16) and child molestation rather than homosexuality?

I do imagine that it is more difficult to measure in society, but if you look at the history of sexual objects, the typical glorified object has been the epitome of youth.

For an unstable person in a society innudated with young glorified sexual objects, deviation from the norm may seem encouraged to that person.

And an unstable priest is constantly in the company of young children, sworn to celibacy, may deviate in such a society.

Cultural glorified objects may encourage deviations to unstable persons, as in China for instance, recently a teacher was convicted of raping young girls in his classes. It was reported that the girls were afraid to report even after repeated rapes and it wasn't until one of the mother discovered what occurred and when a girl managed to resist such an attack, that the truth was revealed. The cause for this lack of action is reported to be due to the revered role of teacher in Asian (well, Chinese in this case) culture thanks to Confucianism. Let's not forget how the schoolgirl uniform is glorified sexually in Asian (well specifically Japanese) culture, and this probably is the same case in Chinese culture.

When it comes down to it, you can probably devise other hypothesis that fits the pattern. IMO, homosexuality has always been present from since before the Roman Empire. Its just I believe the glorified youthful sexual object tempts alot more than homosexuality those who are unable to abide by society's moral code.